You are here: / Negligence
,

Liability Criteria Re: Tenant for Slip and Fall on Abutting Public Sidewalk Explained

In dismissing a cause of action in a slip and fall case against a tenant based upon the alleged condition of an abutting public sidewalk (in which a pair of metal doors leading to the basement of the rented premises were set), the Second Department explained the relevant legal principles as follows:

An owner or occupier of land which abuts a public sidewalk owes no duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition…, and liability may not be imposed upon it for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition in the sidewalk, except where the abutting owner or lessee “ either created the condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or violated a statute or ordinance placing upon the owner or lessee the obligation to maintain the sidewalk which imposes liability upon that party for injuries caused by a violation of that duty’”…. To recover from a tenant which occupies premises abutting a sidewalk under the theory that the tenant has a special use of the sidewalk, the tenant must be in exclusive possession and control of the alleged special-use area…, and the plaintiff must demonstrate that the special use caused the defective condition which proximately caused his or her injuries….  O’Toole v City of Yonkers, 2013 NY Slip Op 04585, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

,

Amendment to Notice of Claim to Add Second Hospital Should Have Been Allowed

In reversing Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s application to amend the notice of claim (to add a second hospital) in a wrongful death action against the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, the Second Department wrote:

The petitioner’s decedent … was severely beaten on November 10, 2010. He was taken first to Queens Center Hospital and soon thereafter transferred to Elmhurst Hospital for surgery, which took place the same day. The decedent died at Elmhurst Hospital a few days later. The petitioner alleged that the respondents’ employees either did not begin the surgery soon enough or did not perform the surgery correctly. In either event, all of the acts and omissions alleged to have been negligent took place on November 10, 2010. The petitioner’s original notice of claim did not mention Elmhurst Hospital, but the petitioner timely sought leave to amend the notice of claim to, inter alia, add allegations regarding the treatment at Elmhurst Hospital. The Supreme Court denied the relief sought by the petitioner.  All of the conduct alleged to have been negligent took place at the two named hospitals on the same day. Moreover, the respondents’ records noted the decedent’s transfer from Queens Center Hospital to Elmhurst Hospital and detailed all of the treatment rendered that day. The respondents could not have been prejudiced by the proposed amendment of the notice of claim and, under the circumstances, there was no need to treat that amendment as the assertion of a new claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[6];…).  Matter of Bingsen Xu v New York City Health & Hosps Corp, 2013 NY 04601, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

,

Significant Limitation Need Not Be Permanent to Constitute Serious Injury; Recent Physical Examination Is Not Prerequisite for Overcoming Summary Judgment

In reversing summary judgment granted to the defendant, the First Department noted that a significant limitation of use of a body function need not be permanent to constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102, and the First Department further explained that its precedent in this area should not be read to require a recent physical examination to overcome summary judgment:

…”[A] significant limitation [of use of a body function or system] need not be permanent in order to constitute a serious injury”…. Indeed, a ” permanent consequential limitation’ requires a greater degree of proof than a significant limitation’, as only the former requires proof of permanence”…. “Insurance Law § 5102(d) does not expressly set forth any temporal requirement,” although assessment of the limitation’s significance does require consideration of its duration in addition to its extent and degree…. Therefore, the lack of a recent examination, while sometimes relevant, is not dispositive by itself in determining whether a plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact in opposing a defendant’s prima facie evidence under the “significant limitation” category.  Our decision in Townes v Harlem Group, Inc. (82 AD3d 583, 583-584 [1st Dept 2011]), should not be read to require a plaintiff to submit a recent examination as a necessary prerequisite to overcoming judgment as a matter of law in every instance of a claim under the “significant limitation” category. To the extent that the Townes Court did require a recent examination, it was due to the specific facts present in that case. Furthermore, the precedents that decision relied upon in requiring a recent examination do not specifically address the degree of proof necessary for a “significant limitation” claim as opposed to a “permanent consequential limitation” claim, instead conflating these two categories of serious injury…. Vasquez v Almanzar, 2013 NY Slip Op 04561, 1st Dept, 6-18-13

 

, ,

“Negligent Ownership and Maintenance” vs “Negligent Abatement” Causes of Action in Lead-Paint Case

In a lead-paint damages case, the Fourth Department determined the landlord was entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action alleging negligent ownership and maintenance (lack of notice), but was not entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action alleging negligent abatement of the hazard:

To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition” … .Defendant met his burden of establishing that he had no actual or constructive notice of the hazardous lead paint condition prior to an inspection conducted by the county department of health, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact… .. Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, the court properly denied that part of his cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, which alleges negligent abatement of the lead-based paint hazard. Defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to that cause of action.  Pagan v Rafter, 210, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Late Notice of Claim Properly Allowed

In affirming the grant of a motion to serve a late notice of claim, the Fourth Department explained the relevant principles:

A notice of claim must be served within 90 days after the claim accrues, although a court may grant leave extending that time, provided that the application therefor is made before the expiration of the statute of limitations period of one year and 90 days (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]).The decision whether to grant such leave “compels consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances,” including the “nonexhaustive list of factors” in section 50-e (5) ….The three main factors are “whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the claim within 90 days of its accrual, and whether the delay would cause substantial prejudice to the municipality” … “[T]he presence or absence of any one of the numerous relevant factors the court must consider is not determinative” …, and “[t]he court is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny the application”… .  Dalton v Akron Central Schools, 408, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Religious Organization Vicariously Liable for Negligence of Volunteer Under Agency Theory

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s finding that a volunteer [Strimling] was an agent of the defendant [Gateway], a corporation hosting a religious event, such that the defendant was vicariously liable with respect to an automobile accident involving the volunteer:

A  principal-agent relationship can  include a volunteer when  the requisite conditions, including control and  acting on  another’s behalf, are shown … .Gateways was  operating a program  where  it expected  700  to 800  attendees, who each paid $700 to attend.  Strimling’s fee to attend was waived  as it had  been  previously and, with his fee waived, he helped with various tasks that had to be accomplished to run the event. Strimling’s responsibilities included  arriving early to help set up, and  he was  supposed to remain after the event to pack up items for the return trip. Strimling referred to his responsibilities as work and  a job, reflecting his understanding of control by Gateways. Although he was not paid directly by Gateways, his $700 fee was waived and one of the individuals from Gateways in charge of the event also gave him $200. There was proof that the accident occurred when an individual who had authorized Strimling’s free attendance realized that two-way radios were needed and Strimling was summoned from his room to go to a store to purchase such items. Strimling was given a Gateways’ credit card and embarked on  a trip to a store solely to purchase the requested items for Gateways when  the accident occurred. He did so despite the fact that the timing of the request created a significant likelihood that Strimling would be put in the difficult position of traveling at a time of the evening that was prohibited by his religious beliefs. The proof sufficiently supports Supreme Court’s decision.  Paterno v Strimling…, 515978, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

Negligence Suit Based Upon Shooting at Shopping Mall Dismissed

The Third Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant shopping mall in a negligence suit based upon a shooting at the mall in which plaintiffs were injured.  The Court determined the shooting was not foreseeable and explained the relevant legal principles as follows:

Landowners have a duty to take reasonable precautions to secure their premises from foreseeable harm, including the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties on the premises….    Criminal conduct is foreseeable if it was “reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location”….   While the prior criminal activity need not have been “at the exact location where [the] plaintiff was harmed or . . . of the same type of criminal conduct to which [the] plaintiff was subjected,” the inquiry of foreseeability depends upon “the location, nature and extent of those previous criminal activities and their similarity, proximity or other relationship to the crime in question”… Haire v Bonelli …, 515494, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

THIRD PARTY ASSAULT

, ,

Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Reversed

The First Department, over a substantial dissent, reversed Supreme Court’s grant of defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in a medical malpractice action:

“The question of whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence is discretion-laden, and the critical inquiry is whether the verdict rested on a fair interpretation of the evidence”…. On this record, we conclude that the Supreme Court erred in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, because it cannot be said that the jury could not have reached its verdict upon any fair interpretation of the evidence…. The jury was entitled to resolve in plaintiff’s favor the conflict between the decedent’s and Dr. Conte’s testimony as to the nature and timing of her complaints and whether he later made referrals for CT scans that she declined.  Rose v Conte, 2013 NY Slip Op 04297, 1st Dept, 6-11-13

 

,

Plaintiffs Should Have Been Allowed to File Late Notice of Claim

The First Department determined plaintiff, who was eleven at the time of the accident, should have been allowed to file an amended notice of claim. The original notice described the wrong address.  At the 50-h hearing the plaintiff identified the correct location after seeing photographs of the incorrect location.  The defendant did not meet its burden of demonstrating prejudice.  Gonzalez v NYC Hous Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 04287, 1st Dept, 6-11-13

 

Question of Fact Raised in Rear-End Collision Case

Over a dissent by two justices, the Fourth Department ruled a question of fact had been raised which precluded summary judgment to a defendant in a rear-end collision case:

Although defendant met his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of negligence on the part of plaintiff inasmuch as it is undisputed that plaintiff’s vehicle rear-ended defendant’s stopped vehicle, we conclude that plaintiff submitted evidence of an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the collision… .

While other cases have held that a party’s testimony that he or she did not “see” the other vehicle’s brake lights illuminated before rear-ending that vehicle does not alone establish the requisite nonnegligent explanation for the collision…, those cases are distinguishable from this case. Here, plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was unable to discern whether defendant’s vehicle was stopped because defendant’s brake lights were not activated. Plaintiff, however, also submitted the deposition testimony of McCulloch [the driver of the vehicle in front of defendant] and defendant in which they both described traffic conditions on the date of the accident as “congested” and “stop and go.” Additionally, plaintiff submitted evidence that defendant stopped suddenly. Indeed, plaintiff testified at his deposition that defendant apologized to plaintiff for the accident, explaining that McCulloch had stopped suddenly and that defendant “couldn’t help it.” That evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party …, establishes a sufficient nonnegligent explanation for the collision.  Borowski v Ptak …, 1315, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy